2 files changed, 58 insertions, 43 deletions
diff --git a/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs b/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs
index a3bb76d7e3b..5449f5f00d5 100644
--- a/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs
+++ b/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs
@@ -1,28 +1,69 @@
-// known-bug
+// check-pass
+
+// This test checks that we're correctly dealing with inductive cycles
+// with canonical inference variables.
 
-// This should compile but fails with the current solver.
-//
-// This checks that the new solver uses `Ambiguous` when hitting the
-// inductive cycle here when proving `exists<^0, ^1> (): Trait<^0, ^1>`
-// which requires proving `Trait<?1, ?0>` but that has the same
-// canonical representation.
 trait Trait<T, U> {}
 
-impl<T, U> Trait<T, U> for ()
+trait IsNotU32 {}
+impl IsNotU32 for i32 {}
+impl<T: IsNotU32, U> Trait<T, U> for () // impl 1
 where
-    (): Trait<U, T>,
-    T: OtherTrait,
+    (): Trait<U, T>
 {}
 
-trait OtherTrait {}
-impl OtherTrait for u32 {}
+impl<T> Trait<u32, T> for () {} // impl 2
+
+// If we now check whether `(): Trait<?0, ?1>` holds this has to
+// result in ambiguity as both `for<T> (): Trait<u32, T>` and `(): Trait<i32, u32>`
+// applies. The remainder of this test asserts that.
+
+// If we were to error on inductive cycles with canonical inference variables
+// this would be wrong:
 
-fn require_trait<T, U>()
+// (): Trait<?0, ?1>
+//  - impl 1
+//      - ?0: IsNotU32 // ambig
+//      - (): Trait<?1, ?0> // canonical cycle -> err
+//      - ERR
+//  - impl 2
+//      - OK ?0 == u32
+//
+// Result: OK ?0 == u32.
+
+// (): Trait<i32, u32>
+//  - impl 1
+//      - i32: IsNotU32 // ok
+//      - (): Trait<u32, i32>
+//          - impl 1
+//              - u32: IsNotU32 // err
+//              - ERR
+//          - impl 2
+//              - OK
+//      - OK
+//  - impl 2 (trivial ERR)
+//
+// Result OK
+
+// This would mean that `(): Trait<?0, ?1>` is not complete,
+// which is unsound if we're in coherence.
+
+fn implements_trait<T, U>() -> (T, U)
 where
-    (): Trait<T, U>
-{}
+    (): Trait<T, U>,
+{
+    todo!()
+}
+
+// A hack to only constrain the infer vars after first checking
+// the `(): Trait<_, _>`.
+trait Constrain<T> {}
+impl<T> Constrain<T> for  T {}
+fn constrain<T: Constrain<U>, U>(_: U) {}
 
 fn main() {
-    require_trait::<_, _>();
-    //~^ ERROR overflow evaluating
+    let (x, y) = implements_trait::<_, _>();
+
+    constrain::<i32, _>(x);
+    constrain::<u32, _>(y);
 }
diff --git a/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.stderr b/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.stderr
deleted file mode 100644
index e4b84e07822..00000000000
--- a/src/test/ui/traits/solver-cycles/inductive-canonical-cycle.stderr
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
-error[E0275]: overflow evaluating the requirement `_: Sized`
-  --> $DIR/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs:26:5
-   |
-LL |     require_trait::<_, _>();
-   |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-   |
-   = help: consider increasing the recursion limit by adding a `#![recursion_limit = "256"]` attribute to your crate (`inductive_canonical_cycle`)
-note: required for `()` to implement `Trait<_, _>`
-  --> $DIR/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs:11:12
-   |
-LL | impl<T, U> Trait<T, U> for ()
-   |            ^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^
-   = note: 128 redundant requirements hidden
-   = note: required for `()` to implement `Trait<_, _>`
-note: required by a bound in `require_trait`
-  --> $DIR/inductive-canonical-cycle.rs:22:9
-   |
-LL | fn require_trait<T, U>()
-   |    ------------- required by a bound in this
-LL | where
-LL |     (): Trait<T, U>
-   |         ^^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `require_trait`
-
-error: aborting due to previous error
-
-For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0275`.